The $1500 Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM - What?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM

Canon has just announced the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM for $1,500 US, and I have to say, I'm scratching my head.

I can get the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS EF USM AF Lens for $1,149 that has the same constant aperture, excellent image stabilization, and better reach... for $350 less. With those savings, I can buy another lens for $350. Heck, I can buy an iPad mini.

For the new 24-70mm, it seems as though the built-in macro mode with hybrid IS is enough, in Canon's mind, to charge the extra money. Oh, and why is IS a good idea for this lens, but not the $2,300 Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Zoom Lens?

DP Review says that the new 24-70mm f/4 is designed to go with the Canon EOS 6D Digital Camera. Yeah, that makes sense.

twitter.jpg Follow me on Twitter



I am with you on this one. I currently have the 24-105mm IS f/4 which is a GREAT lens. Really can't see any reason to purchase the 24-70mm f/4. If one is looking for this range I personally would go for the 24-105 since you get more range for less cost. And on the new 24-70mm f/2.8 for $2300 without the IS I am unable to justify purchasing that lens. Besides since I picked up the Canon 5D Mark III a couple of weeks ago I am finding out you can bring the ISO up pretty high (in low light) with some great results.



I don't think the pricing makes sense or is great, but I still think the lens makes sense. Mostly.

Pricing. Unfortunately, Canon wants to charge massive amounts for new gear. The 24-70 increased about $800 when the MkII was released, the 70-200, about $600. The new primes have gone from the $350 range to the $800 range. The 24-105 is $1100, and now the version is $400 more.

Optically, the 24-105 is a great lens, though so was the original 24-70 (by many counts..), the original 70-200 and many of the primes which have been updated. These new versions are all better in various ways: new sealing, lighter, better IS, coatings, and IQ or what have you for each specific model. The MTF charts of the 24-70 f4 vs the 24-105 are much much improved, so hopefully real world performance is too. Of course, this case is weird because you do lose 35mm, but many people find the 24-70 range appealing, not that the extra reach isn't a benefit.

I see this as a 24-105 MkII. In a year or so it's price will drop to something more acceptable, hopefully, as have most recent canon lenses. Will it be enough better to justify the upgrade? That depends on who you are. For me, I'm happily holding onto my MkI versions of the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS. Yes, I am tempted by what the MkIIs have, but really, it's not worth the cost for me. If they release a 135 f2 MkII soon, then I expect the same will be true for that lens as well (unless it had IS...). I love the 135 f2, and while it's great, it could be improved, but I'm not paying $1300 for a new version if it comes out.

As for why no IS on the 2.8 version: Size and Cost. I would love it there as well, but the lens is already huge, and I suspect Canon determined they would have better success with the current version than with a $2500 IS version which weighs .3lbs more. There are always trade-offs.

Also don't forget how badly the US dollar is doing compared to the yen. Also Canon's numbers (at least according to the last TWIP) are really bad. The only hope we have is that these new lenses flop and Canon comes to their senses and release lenses at a practical price point. As for me I'm not in the market for a lens so it doesn't really matter what they release. I'll stick with my 16-35, 24-70, and 7-200 all 2.8.

Yes, all good points. I know the Yen comes in to play. And yet, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, and Olympus seem to be able to deal with it better :)

I was excited to hear that Canon was finally updating the 35mm f/2 lens but not for $850.00.